Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:29:51 07/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2002 at 03:16:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 20, 2002 at 22:22:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 20, 2002 at 08:13:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 2002 at 08:04:01, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>I think it matters "a factor of 2". >>>> >>>>1) it helps you to prune >>>>2) you get better evaluation in the upper plies when you can return a score >>>>based on a deeper search. >>>> >>>>number one will show itself directly because you iterate deeper, the second one >>>>you don't "see", but it does improve depth along some branches in the same way. >>> >>>1) I get +- 10% hash hits (and less prunes) in typical middlegame. Not enough to >>>matter a factor of two (but I didnt check this so not 100% sure). >>> >>>2) Uh? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> >>Run your program with a tiny hash and a deep search. Then a big hash and >>a deep search. In middlegame positions this will be at least a factor of >>2x. Measure time to depth. Small hash might take 4 minutes to get to depth >>12, then big hash will take around 2 minutes... > >You shouldn't measure time to ply, that would not give you the full benefit of >the hash. You should use time to find the right move. > >I have never seen the hash bring only a factor of 2, even in middlegame. >Last I tested I saw a mate in 5 being solved in 1/4 of the nodes with the hash. Do you use killer moves? I know that at least in version 1.17 you do not do it. Not using killer moves can increase the advantage of hash tables. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.